1 Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the friendship, support, and cooperation of the residents of Superior. We would like to express special gratitude to the following:

City Council

Mayor Rick Disney, Rodney Rogers, Sandra Foote, Trenton Morris, Craig Hale, Levi Gunn, and Darrell Brandt.

Planning Commission

Chairperson Kim Young, Vice Chairperson Carl Suchsland, Theresa Erickson, Emily Kirchhoff, Logan Christiancy, Angela Henderson, Jim Mitchell, and Calvin Hayes.

City Administration

City Administrator Andrew Brittenham, City Attorney John Hodge, and City Clerk Brenda Corman.

2 Context

Responsibility to Plan

Per Nebraska Revised Statutes (NRS) 19-901(1), municipal governments in Nebraska are granted the authority to regulate land use within their jurisdiction:

For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city council of a city of the first class or city of the second class or the village board of trustees of a village may adopt zoning regulations which regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.

Authority to Plan

NRS 19-901(2) explains that zoning regulations may not be adopted until a comprehensive plan has been completed, recommended by the Planning Commission, and adopted by the City Council or Village Board of Trustees:

Such powers shall be exercised only after the city council or village board of trustees has established a planning commission, received from its planning commission a recommended comprehensive development plan as defined in section 19-903, adopted such comprehensive development plan, and received the specific recommendation of the planning commission on the adoption or amendment of zoning regulations. The planning commission shall make a preliminary report and hold public hearings on its recommendations regarding the adoption or repeal of the comprehensive development plan and zoning regulations and shall hold public hearings thereon before submitting its final report to the city council or village board of trustees. Amendments to the comprehensive plan or zoning regulations shall be considered at public hearings before submitting recommendations to the city council or village board of trustees.

A public hearing regarding the recommendation of this Comprehensive Plan was held by the City of Superior Planning Commission on [date].

The Planning Commission recommended the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan on [date].

A public hearing regarding the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan was held by the City of Superior City Council on [date].

By approving Ordinance No. [ordinance number], the City of Superior City Council adopted this Comprehensive Plan on [date].

Building the Plan

The Superior Plan is organized into chapters based upon the guidance and requirements listed within NRS 19-903:

  1. A land-use element which designates the proposed general distributions, general location, and extent of the uses of land for agriculture, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, education, public buildings and lands, and other categories of public and private use of land;
  2. The general location, character, and extent of existing and proposed major roads, streets, and highways, and air and other transportation routes and facilities;
  3. The general location, type, capacity, and area served of present and projected or needed community facilities including recreation facilities, schools, libraries, other public buildings, and public utilities and services;
  4. When a new comprehensive plan or a full update to an existing comprehensive plan is developed, an energy element which: Assesses energy infrastructure and energy use by sector, including residential, commercial, and industrial sectors; evaluates utilization of renewable energy sources; and promotes energy conservation measures that benefit the community. This subdivision shall not apply to villages; and
  5. (a) When next amended after January 1, 1995, an identification of sanitary and improvement districts, subdivisions, industrial tracts, commercial tracts, and other discrete developed areas which are or in the future may be appropriate subjects for annexation and (b) a general review of the standards and qualifications that should be met to enable the municipality to undertake annexation of such areas. Failure of the plan to identify subjects for annexation or to set out standards or qualifications for annexation shall not serve as the basis for any challenge to the validity of an annexation ordinance.

Jurisdiction of the Plan

Per NRS 17-1001 (1), the geographical area covered by the City of Superior Comprehensive Plan includes all land within a one-mile area encompassing the city, “the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city shall consist of the unincorporated area one mile beyond and adjacent to its corporate boundaries.”

Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction displays Superior’s corporate boundary and zoning jurisdiction, which includes all lands within the City of Superior and its One-Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Superior’s land use policies govern all lands within the city as well as the ETJ.1

Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
municipal_boundary <- read_sf(dsn = "shapefiles/municipal_boundary/municipal_boundary.shp")
municipal_etj <- read_sf(dsn = "shapefiles/municipal_etj/municipal_etj.shp")

mapview::mapview(municipal_boundary, layer.name = "Superior Municipal Boundary",
                 alpha.regions = 0.25, lwd = 2)+
  mapview::mapview(municipal_etj, layer.name = "Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction",
                   alpha.regions = 0)

3 Existing Land Use

The existing land use (ELU) map provides a visual representation of how land in Superior is being used. It is a snapshot of the current state of the city’s existing land use patterns and helps with the decision-making processes related to land development, zoning regulation, and infrastructure funding.

Map 2.2: Superior Existing Land Use categorizes different areas – typically parcels of land – based on their primary uses today. This map serves as a baseline for inventorying characteristics of Superior that the community hopes to maintain, as well as what the community hopes to change in the next decade. It assists with identifying areas of change or potential growth, as well as with making informed decisions about future development and zoning regulations.2

Superior Existing Land Use
Superior Existing Land Use

Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of land in Superior by land use category. There are six categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, exempt, and state centrally assessed. Within city limits, commercial and residential uses make up three quarters of all land area, while exempt makes up another 15 percent. Agricultural land just under seven percent, while industrial and state centrally assessed land make up the remainder.

Table 2.1: Existing Land Use - Within Superior City Limits

Land Use Parcels Area (Square Acres) Percent of Total Area
Agricultural 38 74.44 6.74%
Commercial 197 364.42 33.02%
Industrial 3 25.01 2.27%
Residential 1099 468.62 42.47%
Exempt 122 168.91 15.31%
State Centrally Assessed 4 3.77 0.19%

Table 2.2 shows the land use outside of city limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Here, the vast majority of land use is agricultural. While residents and landowners living here do not elect city officials or pay property tax to the city, their lands are nonetheless important to the Superior’s future growth for several reasons:

  1. Growth and Expansion: planning for these adjacent lands will allow the city to make decisions with future growth and expansion plans in mind. As Superior grows, it may annex nearby land to meet demand for housing, infrastructure, and services.
  2. Infrastructure and Utilities: planning ahead helps with efficiently extending existing infrastructure to include water and sanitary extensions, as well as connected street networks.
  3. Economic Development: the city’s adjacent lands will be needed to support the expansion and recruitment of businesses and industries providing goods, services, and jobs.
  4. Environmental Considerations: cities need to consider the environmental impact of adjacent lands. Planning can help identify areas with ecological value, sensitive habitats, or natural resources that should be protected from inappropriate development. It allows cities to implement measures for sustainable land management, conservation, and the mitigation of potential environmental risks.

Table 2.2: Existing Land Use - Within Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Land Use Parcels Area (Square Acres) Percent of Total Area
Agricultural 190 6137.97 77.56%
Commercial 198 455.42 5.75%
Industrial 7 108.81 1.37%
Residential 1103 474.78 6.00%
Exempt 176 730.45 9.22%
State Centrally Assessed 4 6.79 0.09%

4 Housing Assessment

In this chapter, we document the condition, status, and needs for housing in Superior. Drawing on a variety of data from the Nuckolls County Property Assessor, various government agencies, and original surveys of Superior residents, we show that Superior has a long-term trend of population decline and housing structures in need of improvement.

Condition of Housing Structures

The status and condition of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.1 shows how the assessor has rated these parcels in Superior:

Table 3.1: Superior Residential Land Use Conditions

Condition Parcels Percent of Total Parcels Percent of Total Area (Square Acres)
Worn-Out 53 5.83% 54.33%
Worn-Out – Badly Worn 2 0.22% 0.33%
Badly Worn 123 13.53% 12.00%
Badly Worn – Average 109 11.99% 9.08%
Average 473 52.04% 54.32%
Average – Good 69 7.59% 8.59%
Good 78 8.58% 9.71%
Good – Very Good 0 0.00% 0.00%
Very Good 2 0.22% 0.33%
Condition of Superior Residential Structures
Condition of Superior Residential Structures

Remarks on Housing Conditions

  1. Majority of Housing is in Average Condition: The most common rating for residential structures in Superior is “average,” indicating that the majority of homes are habitable and maintain a standard level of functionality. However, they may lack modern updates or show signs of aging and general wear. This suggests stable but aging housing stock, which requires investment in maintenance or modernization over the next decade.
  2. Significant Proportion of “Worn-Out” and “Badly Worn” Housing: Almost 20% of the housing stock are “Worn-Out” or “Badly Worn,” which is a red flag. These homes may have serious deficiencies in systems (roofing, plumbing, electrical, foundation) or visible deterioration. This group likely represents homes that are still occupied but nearing the point where repairs or renovations are critical. This condition group is the most at-risk of becoming “Worn-Out” without intervention.
  3. Limited “Good” Condition Properties: Only nine percent of houses are rated as “Good” or better. There is a small segment of housing stock that is newer, well-maintained, or recently renovated. This could indicate limited recent investment in high-quality residential development or upgrades. It highlights the need for incentives to support home improvement or new builds.
  4. Overall Implications for Housing Policy: The data paint a picture of a largely functional housing stock, but one that is aging and increasingly deteriorated. The low percentage of “Good” homes and the notable share of ``Badly Worn” ones suggest that Superior will benefit from targeted housing rehabilitation programs, especially for owner-occupied homes in poor condition. Grant funding and development efforts could be focused on preventing the decline of average-rated homes while prioritizing repairs for the 13% Badly Worn stock.

Superior residents have expressed frustration with the quality of residential neighborhoods. In a 2025 survey, they expressed mixed satisfaction with vacated and dilapidated houses in their neighborhood, but strong negative sentiment with occupied nuisance properties and neighborhood overall appearances. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.

Figure 3.1: Community Neighborhood Evaluation in Superior
Figure 3.1: Community Neighborhood Evaluation in Superior

One priority for policymakers is to encourage the redevelopment or demolition of such properties to improve community appearance. In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents indicated that “beautification should be a priority for the City of Superior.” 86 percent of respondents supported “ongoing demolition of uninhabitable homes”, and 80 percent supported “enforcing nuisance and other property maintenance codes for all properties.” Finally, 54 percent supported “establishing additional standards to improve the exterior appearance of buildings and properties along the city’s busiest streets,” perhaps recognizing that the beautification of Superior affects not only residents but also businesses and visitors.

Superior residents also described which features of neglected properties they consider problematic. Of six categories – abandoned vehicles, broken windows, yard debris, overgrown landscaping, peeling paint, and vacant homes – all six had at least a third described as “definitely a problem”, while just about half of respondents characterized each as “sometimes a problem.” Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.

Figure 3.2: Characteristics of Neglected Properties
Figure 3.2: Characteristics of Neglected Properties

Age of Housing Structures

The ages of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.2 shows the age distribution of structures in Superior.

Table 3.2

Era Built Parcels Percent of Total Parcels Percent of Total Area (Square Acres)
Before 1900 32 3.50% 2.47%
1900-1920 334 36.54% 30.84%
1920-1940 200 21.88% 22.34%
1940-1960 141 15.42% 10.52%
1960-1980 139 15.21% 19.58%
1980-2000 40 4.38% 5.86%
20000 or later 28 3.01% 8.42%

Remarks on Housing Age

  1. Dominance of Early 20th-Century Homes: The largest share of Superior’s housing stock was built between 1900 and 1960 (73.84%). The most-represented period is 1900-1920 (36.54%). The fact that many homes are more than one-hundred years old indicates a large need for ongoing maintenance and potential rehabilitation.
  2. Prevalence of Pre-1900 Homes: 32 homes were built before 1900 (3.50%). These homes represent historic structures, often requiring specialized upkeep and are possibly eligible for preservation incentives.
  3. Mid-Century Infill: Significant housing construction took place 1960 and 1980, with 139 units built. These homes are typically more modern in layout and materials, and tend to be located away from Superior’s downtown.
  4. Minimal Low 21st-Century Construction: Only 28 units have been built since 2000. This indicates lower levels of new development, possible barriers such as land availability, economic constraints, or infrastructure limitations, and a need for housing investment or incentives to encourage new construction.
  5. Overall Implications for Housing Policy: Superior’s housing inventory is largely composed of century-old homes, with little recent development. This indicates a mature and aging housing stock, suggesting a need for housing rehabilitation programs, targeted infill development, infrastructure upgrades to support new residential construction, and strategic programming to preserve historic character while meeting modern housing needs.
Age of Superior Residential Structures
Age of Superior Residential Structures

Community Housing Needs

Figure 3.3 shows how Superior’s population has changed over the last century. The city population peaked in the 1940s before beginning to steadily decline to about 1,800 residents today. The decline was most pronounced in the 1990s.

Figure 3.3: Historic Population Growth and Decline Figure 3.4 presents several possible population scenarios for Superior. They range from one-percent annual growth over the next 25 years to one-percent annual decline. Although many factors – some outside of the control of Superior residents – influence which scenarios will become reality, municipal officials have expressed that a target scenario of 0.25% annual growth is a policy goal.

Figure 3.4: Population Scenarios for Superior, Nebraska
Figure 3.4: Population Scenarios for Superior, Nebraska

Families and Households

The Census defines a family as any two or more people (not necessarily including a householder) residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household consists of one or more persons residing together who may or may not be related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Multiple families can reside in the same household.

Figure 3.5 is based on estimates from the 2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey and shows how average family and household sizes have changed in Superior over the past decade. The average family size has increased over the past decade, peaking for a four-year stretch from 2018 to 2021, before declining the last two years. Meanwhile, the average household size is up about 14 percent from 2013.

Figure 3.5: Average Family and Household Sizes
Figure 3.5: Average Family and Household Sizes

Some projections indicate future growth for Superior, while others – including the historical one – suggest continued decline. However, if Superior’s population grows, the city will need additional housing units. This will require the new development of adjacent lands and possible redevelopment of lands already in the city. Table 3.3 uses the 2023 ACS estimate of 2.16 persons per household to document projected needs.

Table 3.3: Population Projection Scenarios and Housing Needs
0.25% Annual Growth Rate 1% Annual Growth Rate
2040 Population Projection 1918 2209
2050 Population Projection 1966 2430
Total Population Increase by 2050 141 605
New Housing Units Needed by 2050 66 281

Age Distribution

Figure 3.6 shows the distribution of Superior residents by age and gender. One striking observation is the relative lack of young adults: in a city of around 1,900 people, there are only 49 men and 80 women age 20 and 29.3 One priority for policymakers is to pursue housing and business environments that encourage more young people to come to Superior, and to encourage Superior’s residents under the age of 19 to consider staying as they age into adulthood.

Figure 3.6: Age Distribution in Superior
Figure 3.6: Age Distribution in Superior

Housing Costs

Overall, both incomes and costs of living have increased in Superior over the last decade. Figure 3.7 shows how, adjusting for inflation, each of median home values and median household incomes have increased since 2013. Fortunately for households, the growth rate of household incomes has outpaced the growth rate of home values.

It is also worth noting that rental prices have fallen from their peak in 2014. While the lowest price point in 2020 may be attributable to COVID-19-related factors, rental prices were trending downward before 2020 but have begun to rise again since.4

Figure 3.7: Housing Costs for Superior
Figure 3.7: Housing Costs for Superior

Vacant and Underutilized Properties

Over the last decade, the vacancy rate of housing units in Superior has hovered around 15 percent (Figure 3.8). Most recently, this was 16.68%, or about 165 housing units. At the 2023 average household size of 2.16 persons per household (Figure 3.5), those vacant units could be expected to house around 330 additional people.5 Simply filling those units, after necessary renovation or redevelopment, might help Superior achieve population growth between 0.25% and 1% annually by 2050. Renovation or redevelopment alone will not reverse the population decline, but the infrastructure is at least in place to avoid historical and population decline scenarios with careful implementation.

Figure 3.8: Housing Vacancy Rates in Superior
Figure 3.8: Housing Vacancy Rates in Superior

Key Takeaways

About 43% of the land usage in Superior is residential, or set aside as space where people live. However, many of the structures on that land are aging or in average (or worse) condition. If the city is to grow, the city needs to work to maintain the status of existing residential structures and to develop new ones. If nothing changes or maintenance is ignored, the distribution of homes in Superior will only get older and decrease in quality.

This setting occurs amidst more than a half-century trend of population decline. Like many rural communities, Superior is getting smaller and getting older. If Superior is to attract new residents to sustain its population, a multifaceted approach of developing new homes and redeveloping or renovating existing ones is essential.

Residents clearly show demand for improvement and renovation of existing housing stock. While the City has a toolkit of nuisance abatement procedures, residents and public stakeholders need to understand that the implementation of those procedures is long, hard, and necessary.

  1. Superior’s southern boundary is within one mile of the Nebraska-Kansas border. Consequently, the ETJ does not spill over into Kansas and the extent of the ETJ is less than one mile there.↩︎

  2. These uses are designated by the Nuckolls County Property Assessor. While the standards for designation may be debatable, we rely on these because they are largely the most up-to-date.↩︎

  3. These numbers are estimates and may be statistically noisy. While it is unlikely as of this writing that there are exactly 49 men and 80 women in this age cohort, it is nonetheless likely true that the proportion in this age cohort is small relative to others.↩︎

  4. Evaluating the impact of the pandemic on housing costs, in general, is difficult. Overall, rent prices cratered in the summer of 2020, but measuring the impact in smaller towns like Superior is a challenge for researchers. See Kuk, Shachter, Faber, and Besbris. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Rental Market: Evidence From Craigslist.” American Behavioral Scientist, 2021.↩︎

  5. This estimation is noisy and relies on assumptions that all vacant units are suitable for current living, which is unlikely.↩︎